Madhya Pradesh Court January 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kantu @ Bhojrao and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2087/2004 1.Kantu alias Bhojraj Aged 27 years S/o Yadorao 2.Gopal Aged 19 years S/o Parasnath 3. Sahabrao Aged 20 years S/o Santoshrao 4.Punjya Aged 28 years S/o Mahangya All residents of Dolhan Police Station Saikheda District Betul (MP) Appellants Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Saikheda District Betul (MP) Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Himanshu Chourasiya,Advocate with Shri Pramod Thakre,Advocate for the appellants. Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State. Date of hearing :17. 1.2013 Date of judgment:31. 1.2013 2 (JUDGMENT ) Per: Vimla Jain, J Appellants preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.11.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul i...
R.P. Dubey Vs. Vasudevan Shyamdas Nair
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Review Petition No.944/12. 31.1.2013 Shri M.P.Acharya with Shri Pradeep Acharya, counsel for the applicant. He is heard on the question of admission. ORDER The applicant/petitioner of W.P.17956/12, has filed this review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, to review the order dated 5.11.2012, passed in the aforesaid writ petition whereby, such writ petition was dismissed on merits at the stage of motion hearing. After taking me through the record of the writ petition annexed with this petition so also the order under review and the averments of the petition, applicants counsel submits that on the date of passing such order due to bonafide mistake of the appearing counsel of the petitioner/applicant, it was not pointed out before the Court that without deciding the dispute raised by the present applicant in the written statement with respect of quantum of rent and rate of rent so also without fixing any provisional rent, the impugned order dated 6.9.2012 was pass...
Dr. B.C.Mahaptra Vs. M.P. Bhoj (Open) University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Writ Appeal No.986/2012 31.1.2013 Shri D.S.Agnihotri, Advocate, for the appellant. Smt.P.L. Shrivastava, Advocate, for the respondents. Heard on admission. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4817/2012 (S).Vide advertisement dated 5.9.2002 respondent no.2 M.P.Bhoj (Open) University through its Registrar invited applications for appointment to the posts of Lecturer on contract basis for a period of two yeaRs.In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied for his appointment. The appellant was then selected and appointed vide order dated 26.5.2003 as Lecturer on contract basis initially for a period of two yeaRs.The appointment was, however, extended from time to time. The Board of Directors of the M.P.Bhoj (Open) University finally in its meeting dated 6.8.2007 resolved that the contractual appointment shall not be extended after 30.9.2007. Therefore, after 30.9.2007 the services of appellant were...
Ghoor Singh Bhilala Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2402/2010 Ghoor Singh Bhilala, Son of Ramsingh Bhilala, Aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Bithori Tappar, Police Station, Noorganj, Distt. Raisen, (M.P.) Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO, P.S. Noorganj, Distt. Raisen (M.P.) Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, Adv. for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, P.L. for the respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (31.1.2013) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment- dated 8.10.2010 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No.222/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- & in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. By that judgment only he was acquitted of the offence puni...
Udit Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
WP 13617.09 Writ Petition No.13617 of 2009(s) (Udit Narayan Singh v State of M.P.and four otheRs.31-01-2013 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/State. Heard. Communication dated 27-07-2009 and order dated 31-08-2009 are being questioned vide this writ petition. Communication dated 27-07-2009 is in response to petitioner's letter dated 09-07-2009 whereby, petitioner sought the payment towards general insurance scheme from January, 1996 to February 2000; he has been called upon to show as to whether deductions of Rs.100/- per month was made for the said period and if deposited to produce the challan. Whereas, by order dated 31-08-2009 petitioner has been directed to refund Rs.51217/- an amount in lieu of second kramonnati said to be wrongly given to the petitioner in the year 2001. Initially appointed in the cadre of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer on 08-09-1969 the petitioner was granted the benefit of se...
Jagdish Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.309/2013 M.Cr.C No.309/2013 30.01.2013 Petitioner by Shri Ajay Dubey, Advocate. Respondent/State by Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer. This petition has been preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C against order dated 05/09/2000 passed by JMFC, Satna in Criminal Case No.491/1997 by which petitioner has been declared absconding and trial court issued permanent arrest warrant against him. Without entering into merits of the matter, at the outset this court taking sympathatic view on assurance of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is willing and keen to appear before trial court to participate in proceedings of criminal case pending under section 420, 406 IPC against him, it is directed that petitioner to appear, along with certified copy of this order, on or before 4th March, 2013 before the trial court for furnishing necessary bail etc as directed by trial court in this regard. Trial court shall proceed with the trial without any further delay. Impugned order dated 05/09...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. O.P.Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1...C.P.No.1339 o30. 01.2013 Petitioner present in person. Shri Anshuman Singh, Counsel for the Corporation. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A.for the respondent/State. It is submitted by Shri Singh that a compliance report has been filed today in the Registry as document No.540/13. A copy of which is supplied to the petitioner in the Court. In the report it is stated by the respondents that sterilisation and vaccination process on dogs was implemented between 7.8.2012 and 29.1.2013. Still near about thirteen thousand dogs are on streets, for which aforesaid exercise is going on and it will take some more time to complete the process. In respect of stray bulls, it is stated that between 8.8.2012 and 31.8.2012, 354 stray bulls were captured. But still some more bulls are on the streets for which the same drive will be initiated again. Petitioner present submitted that between September,2012 and December,2012, no effort was made to capture the stray bulls and for sterilization and vaccination of t...
Pappi Urf Bhagwan Das Bhoujdar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 30/1/2013 Shri D.K.Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent /State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.373/2012 at Police Station Rampur Baghelan District Satna under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC against the petitioner. Let case diary be called for and list the matter in the week commencing from 11/3/13. In view of the fact, that co-accused named in the FIR, vide order dated 18.12.2012 of this Court in M.Cr.C No.11652/12 was given protection that till the next date of listing, concerned police shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner, this protection is extended to the present petitioner also. However, it is made clear that this protection will not amount to stay further proceedings of the case. CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/- 2...
Naveen Masih Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
W.P.No.16418/2010 Naveen Masih & another State of M.P. & others 30.1.2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, counsel for petitioners. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Addl. A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Kunal Thakre, counsel for respondent nos.5 to 10. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed for following reliefs :- (i) To issue an appropriate writ/order, commanding the respondent no.1 & 2 to hold an enquiry through an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary, in the illegal, unauthorized and fraudulent sale of Church land held in trust by respondent no.6A and the manipulations, forgery etc done in the revenue records for facilitating such sale and transfer. (ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order commanding the respondent no.5 to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 in the matter of illegal, unauthorized and fraudulent sale of Church lands held in trust by respondent no.6A. (iii) To issue an appropriate writ to the respondent no.1 to 5 commanding th...
Rachana Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
WP No.18636/12 30.1.13. Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that he has received instructions from respondent no.3 that all the petitioners were admitted by Centralized Counselling. The Counselling was conducted by Baraktullah University, Bhopal. However, the petitioners were allocated the college of respondent no.3. They have also appeared in the examination and respondent no.3 is ready to declare their result within a period of thirty days from today. In view of aforesaid statement made by respondent no.3, petitioners are satisfied and no further order is required. This petition is finally disposed of in terms of statement made by respondent no.3, with no order as to costs. C.c.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Judge. Jk....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »